Limited Public Access
By James Preston Allen, Publisher

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
-California State law known as the Ralph M. Brown Act

     For those of you who chose to take summer vacations to escape the doldrums of civic engagement, I suggest that you reconsider and leave town sometime around Christmas when you know that government agencies are actually closed. The reasons for this I’ll reveal in the following two episodes of my own civic oversight while some of you have been off enjoying the splendors of distant places.
     On Tuesday July 10, the Los Angeles City Council unexpectedly decamped from downtown LA to the San Pedro Riviera of the Doubletree Hotel, setting up their weekly meeting in the slightly less cavernous accommodations of the Portofino room. It’s not that they didn’t tell anyone they were coming, as they did post the bare minimum legal agenda, it’s just that they didn’t want a big crowd. This was a “special” meeting with one agenda item. “Dialogue and discussion concerning issues attendant to Council’s information sharing, partnership in city government, policy direction and operational improvements.”
     It was actually what they called a “board retreat,” but the thing is when you get all (or even most) of a legislative body all in one place to discuss policy it is in fact an official council meeting!
     So even though an agenda was issued and kept relatively quiet—we were notified on the morning of the meeting—yet to my surprise the agenda did not itemize public comments, which even though the council president allowed them did not appear on the agenda. So what’s the big deal?
     When I raised the point to the Sergeant-at-Arms I was asked to step into the hallway and then farther down the hallway until we were almost out of the building, at which point I had to explain to him that the council agenda was in error and that as a matter of law, custom and respect for the citizens, it is the obligation of the council to tell the public on the agenda when its time to comment is appropriate. It was at this point that the City Attorney for the council, Dion J. O’Connell arrived and he and I got into a rather heated discussion of the letter of the law concerning Special Meetings versus Regular Meetings, to which he opined, “Special Meetings do not necessitate public comment or placing them on the agenda.” He was wrong, but spent an inordinate amount of tax payer time explaining why. The law reads, “Every notice for a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for the members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item” section 54954.3 (a). Mr. O’Connell was wrong, but in the end the council, which at that very moment was discussing the problems of adhering to the Brown Act, granted an exception to reopen public comment, and I spoke. But it shouldn’t have to come as an exception granted to the public. You and I have the right to speak before any legislative body, and it absolutely has to be on the agenda. It’s the law! O’Connell should know it.

Public Records Act
     Episode II this summer came when I innocently asked Dolores Carnizales of the 15 District Council office for the details of the arrest of one of the Dog Park people on Knoll Hill. (See related story p. 5 this issue). As soon as she realized that I wasn’t just chatting things up and she might get quoted in the newspaper her lips got tighter than a clam at low tide. All I wanted was the details on a government issued citation. I wasn’t asking for classified secrets. Yet, even Mike Molina, Hahn’s chief of staff, would not reveal the details of the arrest.
     I then inquired at the Port Police, who insisted that I speak with the public affairs office, who then referred me to the Ports attorneys to see “if” they could release the information on the citation to the press. After several days of argument and negotiation the Port’s attorney finally responded, “Dear Mr. Allen, To the extent the request seeks arrest reports…the records are exempt from disclosure… .” And then proceeded to give me partial information.
     Still unacceptable. I responded with a multitude of emails backed up by our First Amendment lawyer, Terry Francke, who specializes in Open Government law (see more on open government issues at www.calaware.org).
     At issue here again is your right to know what your government officials are doing (or not) on your behalf. Was I making a mountain out of a Knoll Hill? You can decide for yourself, but in the end it is the principle of upholding open government laws that I believe newspapers like this one have to fight for, so that the agencies that we have created and that we continue to pay for do not indiscriminately limit public access, public comment or public oversight of their actions.